Artificial Intelligence Modeling of Risk-Taking Behavior: Contributions of Sensation Seeking, Delay Discounting, Emotional Dysregulation, and Peer Influence

سال انتشار: 1405
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 11

فایل این مقاله در 10 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_JARCP-8-2_028

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 13 خرداد 1405

چکیده مقاله:

Objective: The present study aimed to develop and evaluate an artificial intelligence-based model for predicting risk-taking behavior based on sensation seeking, delay discounting, emotional dysregulation, and peer influence.Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional predictive study was conducted on ۵۱۲ young adults aged ۱۸ to ۳۰ years in Canada, selected through stratified convenience sampling. Data were collected using validated psychometric instruments, including the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT), Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), Delay Discounting Task, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), and Resistance to Peer Influence Scale (RPI). After preprocessing procedures such as normalization and missing data imputation, both traditional statistical analysis and machine learning approaches were applied. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine linear relationships, while machine learning models including Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and XGBoost were implemented using ۱۰-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F۱-score, and AUC-ROC, and SHAP analysis was employed to interpret feature importance.Findings (inferentials only): The regression model was statistically significant (F(۴, ۵۰۷) = ۱۲۸.۶۴, p < ۰.۰۰۱), explaining ۵۰.۳۸% of the variance in risk-taking behavior. Sensation seeking (β = ۰.۴۱, p < ۰.۰۰۱), peer influence (β = ۰.۳۴, p < ۰.۰۰۱), emotional dysregulation (β = ۰.۲۷, p < ۰.۰۰۱), and delay discounting (β = ۰.۲۲, p < ۰.۰۰۱) were all significant predictors. Among machine learning models, XGBoost demonstrated the highest performance (accuracy = ۰.۸۷, AUC-ROC = ۰.۹۲), followed by Random Forest and Support Vector Machine. SHAP analysis confirmed sensation seeking as the most influential predictor, followed by peer influence, emotional dysregulation, and delay discounting.Conclusion: The findings indicate that risk-taking behavior can be effectively predicted using an integrative artificial intelligence framework that captures the combined effects of dispositional, cognitive, emotional, and social factors, with sensation seeking and peer influence were the most influential determinants. Objective: The present study aimed to develop and evaluate an artificial intelligence-based model for predicting risk-taking behavior based on sensation seeking, delay discounting, emotional dysregulation, and peer influence. Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional predictive study was conducted on ۵۱۲ young adults aged ۱۸ to ۳۰ years in Canada, selected through stratified convenience sampling. Data were collected using validated psychometric instruments, including the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT), Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), Delay Discounting Task, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), and Resistance to Peer Influence Scale (RPI). After preprocessing procedures such as normalization and missing data imputation, both traditional statistical analysis and machine learning approaches were applied. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine linear relationships, while machine learning models including Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and XGBoost were implemented using ۱۰-fold cross-validation. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F۱-score, and AUC-ROC, and SHAP analysis was employed to interpret feature importance. Findings (inferentials only): The regression model was statistically significant (F(۴, ۵۰۷) = ۱۲۸.۶۴, p < ۰.۰۰۱), explaining ۵۰.۳۸% of the variance in risk-taking behavior. Sensation seeking (β = ۰.۴۱, p < ۰.۰۰۱), peer influence (β = ۰.۳۴, p < ۰.۰۰۱), emotional dysregulation (β = ۰.۲۷, p < ۰.۰۰۱), and delay discounting (β = ۰.۲۲, p < ۰.۰۰۱) were all significant predictors. Among machine learning models, XGBoost demonstrated the highest performance (accuracy = ۰.۸۷, AUC-ROC = ۰.۹۲), followed by Random Forest and Support Vector Machine. SHAP analysis confirmed sensation seeking as the most influential predictor, followed by peer influence, emotional dysregulation, and delay discounting. Conclusion: The findings indicate that risk-taking behavior can be effectively predicted using an integrative artificial intelligence framework that captures the combined effects of dispositional, cognitive, emotional, and social factors, with sensation seeking and peer influence were the most influential determinants.

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Aksen, D., Sleight, F. G., & Lynn, S. J. (2023). ...
  • Aquili, L., & Lim, L. W. (2025). Balancing Risk and ...
  • Carucci, S., Narducci, C., Bazzoni, M., Balia, C., Donno, F., ...
  • Chachar, A. S., & Shaikh, M. Y. (2024). Decision-Making and ...
  • Clay, J. M., Baker, K. A., Mezabrovschi, R., Berti, G., ...
  • Edelson, S. M., & Reyna, V. F. (2023). Decision Making ...
  • Finkenstaedt, M., Biedermann, D., Biedermann, S. V., & Fuß, J. ...
  • França, T. F. A., Segura, I. A., Dias, N. M., ...
  • Houser, T. M. (2024). Rational Inattention as a Transdiagnostic Marker ...
  • Icenogle, G., & Cauffman, E. (2021). Adolescent Decision Making: A ...
  • Klinge, J. L., Warschburger, P., & Klein, A. M. (2025). ...
  • Kübel, S. L., Deitzer, J. R., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ribeaud, ...
  • Lee, Y., Gilbert, J. R., Waldman, L. R., Zarate, C. ...
  • Mancone, S., Celia, G., Zanon, A., Gentile, A., & Diotaiuti, ...
  • Mancone, S., Zanon, A., Marotta, G., Celia, G., & Diotaiuti, ...
  • Markus, J. T. d. R., Dahlén, A. D., Rukh, G., ...
  • McQuaid, G. A., Darcey, V. L., Patterson, A. E., Rose, ...
  • Mena-Moreno, T., Testa, G., Mestre‐Bach, G., Miranda‐Olivos, R., Granero, R., ...
  • Nicholls, K., Dean, P., & Ogden, J. (2024). Medical, Subjective ...
  • Peck, K., Nighbor, T., & Price, M. (2022). Examining Associations ...
  • Ramírez, M., Ugedo, A., Fañanás, L., Cano-Escalera, G., Sáiz, P. ...
  • Shain, L. M., Nguyen, M., & Meadows, A. L. (2022). ...
  • Zhao, Q., Milecki, L., Kuceyeski, A., Grosenick, L., Brumback, T., ...
  • Zmigrod, L. (2022). Individual-Level Cognitive and Personality Predictors of Ideological ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع