Risk-Taking Behavior and Personality: Article Review
This paper reviews Dominic Cooper's (2003) article examining how personality traits and group dynamics influence risk-taking behavior and risk management outcomes. The review summarizes Cooper's key arguments—including personality types, task experience, reward incentives, and group factors—as well as his proposed hierarchy of risk management strategies. The critique highlights a structural weakness: Cooper's failure to integrate the psychological discussion in the first half of his article with the risk management strategies presented in the second half. The review also questions Cooper's repeated use of the term "subjective" despite citing empirical studies throughout. The paper concludes with recommendations for how Cooper could have produced a more cohesive and practically useful work.
- Article Summary: Overview of Cooper's key arguments on risk and personality
- Critique of Structure and Integration: Analysis of disconnect between article's two halves
- Use of Subjectivity and Evidence-Based Practice: Critique of Cooper's inconsistent use of 'subjective'
- Overall Assessment and Recommendations: Constructive suggestions for improving Cooper's work
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The review clearly separates summary from critique, giving the reader a solid grounding in Cooper's article before evaluating its weaknesses.
- The critique is specific and well-reasoned: rather than generic complaints, it pinpoints an identifiable structural flaw—the disconnect between the two halves of Cooper's article.
- The paper acknowledges Cooper's contributions while remaining candid about shortcomings, modeling balanced academic critique.
- The recommendation section is constructive, offering a concrete suggestion (expanding on multidisciplinary risk teams) rather than simply listing problems.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates effective critical article review technique. The writer consistently grounds critiques in the source text, citing specific page numbers and quoting Cooper's own language (e.g., "subjective") to support the analysis. This approach—using the author's own words as evidence against inconsistency—is a hallmark of rigorous academic critique.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a standard review format: an article summary covering both halves of Cooper's original work, a two-part critique addressing structural coherence and methodological language, and a brief conclusion with actionable recommendations. The references section conforms to APA citation style. Total length is concise and appropriate for a focused article review at the undergraduate level.
Article Summary
Dominic Cooper (2003) reviews the various factors that influence risk outcomes, with a focus on how personality can have a significant effect on risk-taking behavior. The first half of the article explores the admittedly murky associations between personality types, group dynamics, and risk-taking behavior, while the second half discusses risk management and control strategies. Importantly, Cooper states explicitly that individual and group factors are difficult to control or change. Despite this position, he devotes considerable effort to describing different personality types, their propensity for risk-taking behavior, and the likelihood of harm. In the final analysis, personality, task experience, the promise of a reward, and group dynamics appear to have the greatest influence on risk-taking behavior. If the first half of the article were to be summarized, it would be this: of the sources of risk amenable to controls, people can be controlled the least.
In the second half of the article, Cooper (2003) outlines well-accepted risk management strategies. These include establishing a hierarchy of risk policies, risk identification, risk assessment, risk evaluation, implementing risk controls, and conducting iterative reviews and reevaluations once controls have been implemented. Cooper (2003) also emphasizes the importance of generating a risk management paper trail and scheduling regular risk reevaluations.
Critique of Structure and Integration
Unfortunately, Cooper (2003) fails to integrate the first half of the article with the second half. At the very beginning of the article, Cooper (2003, p. 39) states that the link between personality and risk has not been well studied. Later, he states that of all the factors contributing to risk, individual and group factors are the least controllable. In other words, half of the article is spent describing factors that contribute to risk yet are least amenable to risk control measures.
Cooper (2003) does mention a few strategies that could minimize the influence of individual personality traits and group dynamics on risk-taking behavior—such as placing new hires with groups that have strong safety records and leadership—but he essentially leaves the topic of psychology and its influence on risk-taking behavior behind as he transitions to discussing risk management strategies.
References
Baker, Dorothy I., Gottschalk, Margaret, and Bianco, Luann M. (2007). Step-by-step: Integrating evidence-based fall-risk management into senior centers. Gerontologist, 47(4), 548–554.
Cooper, Dominic. (2003). Psychology, risk & safety: Understanding how personality & perception can influence risk taking. Professional Safety, November, pp. 39–46.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.